It seems like Silicon Valley has been the technology center of innovation my entire adult life. But listening to Steve Case yesterday he pointed out that Detroit was "Silicon Valley" 50-60 years ago, and Pittsburgh was 100 years ago. Perspective I hadn't stopped to consider. So where will the US center of innovation be in 50 years.

Also reminds me of the outsized influence of New York (financial), Wash DC (government), Los Angeles (media) and San Francisco (tech) on the U.S. I can't remember what book/author I read this in. And are they more durable as centers of financial, government or media. Or maybe decentralization has made 'centers of ____' less relevant.

Are you planning to be financially independent as early as possible so you can live life on your own terms? Discuss successful investing strategies, asset allocation models, tax strategies and other related topics in our online forum community. Our members range from young folks just starting their journey to financial independence, military retirees and even multimillionaires. No matter where you fit in you'll find that Early-Retirement.org is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with our members, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create a retirement blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

Some of the main hotbeds of the next wave of tech (IMO) will be in and around Austin, Boston and the Research Triangle area of NC. At least that's how it looks as of now to me.

__________________"Hey, for every ten dollars, that's another hour that I have to be in the work place. That's an hour of my life. And my life is a very finite thing. I have only 'x' number of hours left before I'm dead. So how do I want to use these hours of my life? Do I want to use them just spending it on more crap and more stuff, or do I want to start getting a handle on it and using my life more intelligently?"-- Joe Dominguez (1938 - 1997)

The shifting technology focus from Pittsburgh (oil) to Detroit (autos) to Silicon Valley (computers) wasn't a geographic shift, it was a technology shift. You might get some idea of a future shift if you could get an idea of the technology shift. For example, if there were to be a big breakthrough in fusion energy, or in bio-pharmaceuticals then the technology focus would boost which ever locale had a larger concentration of that industry. Breakthroughs in anti-aging, anti-cancer, asteroid mining, quantum computing, autonomous vehicles or several other topics are all possible, and any one of them could be big enough to stimulate a new technology hub city becoming prominent.

IMHO universities have a huge impact but why Stanford and not MIT? The other dynamic is the presence of creative personalities, young adults who can envision other possibilities. Then there are 'chance takers'.

I don't know Austin, I do know my DD & SIL considered the research triangle before settling in the Silicon Valley. Based on my small sample NC research triangle would be on my short list.

Several times when I visited employers in middle-America they spoke of the "Left Coast", essentially dismissing creative types. Their loss, our gain because their innovators came our way.

Famous last words of an Engineering VP:
"We're moving Software Engineering from Santa Clara to Dallas, Texas."

Guess how many engineers were relocated, versus changed employers? (Hint: Within an hour of the announcement, headhunters had put leaflets on every vehicle in the parking area. There were recruiters in every nearby lunch place all week.)

San Francisco has a huge biotech industry because of the strength of UC Berkley's school of bioscience. When I had occasion to visit those employers I noticed that bioscience PhDs were very reluctant to venture far from top schools in their field, that there is synergy in density.

I think Boston has strong potential for biotech ventures and as I recall a couple have surfaced in the last 6 months.

Because of the nexus to top ranked university programs it is very difficult to transplant bioscience hot-spots. About 15 years ago Seattle tried, I haven't seen much about that in several years.

One of the problems with bioscience is the regulatory environment. That really impacts the return on investment. I know of at least one VC who has concluded that there are just too many hurdles to invest in that area.

With regard to tech employment, start-ups, depth of business services and general depth of intellectual stimulation, I doubt the Silicon Valley area south of SF on the San Mateo peninsula will be bested, unless California really steps in a big one. How much sense would it have made 100 years ago to ask "what will the next US financial center be? New York of course. Even when you no longer have open outcry floor trading, the depth of services and brains in NYC is overwhelming.

Don't forget that it is easier to lie to someone in an email than across the dinner table, and even though there are definitely outliers, most humans want to see and feel the people they are going to be depending on.

Ha

__________________
"As a general rule, the more dangerous or inappropriate a conversation, the more interesting it is."-Scott Adams

San Francisco has a huge biotech industry because of the strength of UC Berkley's school of bioscience. When I had occasion to visit those employers I noticed that bioscience PhDs were very reluctant to venture far from top schools in their field, that there is synergy in density.

I would agree. DW, who works in biotech in San Francisco, collaborates closely with UCSF. Such universities offer valuable resources for the biotech community. Recently, she needed access to some advanced imaging technique that would not be cost effective for her company to acquire. So she looked to collaborate with the imaging lab across the street. Their expertise was top notch.

One of the reasons for some distribution of venture capital firms is the fact that they want their ventures easy to oversee and thus relatively close by.

So, if you want to support ventures in your area support your local venture capital firm. I know, I know, you have to have a huge chunk of change to become a limited partner in a fund but you can encourage institutions such as pension funds to set some money aside for your local vc market.

Famous last words of an Engineering VP:
"We're moving Software Engineering from Santa Clara to Dallas, Texas."

Guess how many engineers were relocated, versus changed employers? (Hint: Within an hour of the announcement, headhunters had put leaflets on every vehicle in the parking area. There were recruiters in every nearby lunch place all week.)

That is funny!!

I heard that Intel put plant expansion locations to a vote by their engineers to avoid just that problem.

With regard to tech employment, start-ups, depth of business services and general depth of intellectual stimulation, I doubt the Silicon Valley area south of SF on the San Mateo peninsula will be bested, unless California really steps in a big one. How much sense would it have made 100 years ago to ask "what will the next US financial center be? New York of course. Even when you no longer have open outcry floor trading, the depth of services and brains in NYC is overwhelming.

Undoubtedly Detroit (and Pittsburgh) thought for many years they'd never "be bested" either...

Latest Threads

Social Knowledge Community

About Us

This community was started in 2002 as an alternative to a then fee only Motley Fool. The focus of the discussions is on topics related to early retirement and financial independence. The community is moderated to ensure a pleasant experience for our members.